Something similar here. I pick what I like from every way of thinking, philosophy, or holy book. The main idea I apply to do this is "The truth is useful", a budhist motto. I don't believe the idea of god can be understantood by humans, that is jewish. The only thing that remains is change, I ching. Nothing is completely good or bad,Taiji ... I was born in a roman catholic family, I have jewish, arabian and european blood, my uncle was muslim, I studied in a catholic school, where the teachers were priest, indeed they wanted me to become a priest. I read the catholic holy bible by the age of 13, every book, some of them several times. I read the Tarot, the restored one by Jodorowsky and Camoin. It's not used to read the future but as a tool to understand yourself. So for me religion is important, but I don't want to belong to one, as I don't want to strech my mind.

I'm kind of against religions in general, because I haven't come across any that favour females. And I refuse to believe that I am worth less than a man due to the simple fact that I was born a woman.

Spiritism believes in equal rights, but not really in equal roles. Women and Men AREN'T alike, we have different brains and bodies(neuroscience here)

Again, spiritism doesn't believe that anyone should be favored because of gender, saying someone is better because of "Luck" is ridiculous,(this applies to many other things aside gender, like being born rich or race) charity, love and work(work in the sense of contributing to your society development, both moral and scientific, independent of the role you perform) are the only things that can make one better.

So, for example, in an ideal kardecist community, the leader would be a woman,( I can't remember the name of the area of the brain that makes women better at diplomacy and social relations in general, but well, it exists) while the scientists and manual labourers would be man(we have bigger bodies for the manual labour and bigger inferior-parietal lobules for math)

So, in a kardecist society men would be taken to math classes since birth while women would only learn languages and social interactions? No.First, there are exceptions to every rule, which means that a woman may be born with a brain that favors math.

Second, while we believe that you should always put the well being of your society before yours, we know that humans, selfish as we are, aren't really capable of doing this. A woman that wants to be an engineer shouldn't be forced to be a nurse just because she would be more efficient that way.(furthermore someone who doesn't do what he/she likes tend to not be as efficient as he/she was supposed to)

Third, It's against everything that spiritism represents to force someone to be or do something:

- I have my free-will and even God doesn't mess with it, how can we humans do it? (There are obvious exceptions, for example, a mass murderer should obviously be imprisioned, since free-will will be much more messed up with his freedom. Killing the murderer instead of trying to chance his mind is lazyness and goes against the "hard working rule. Oh but isn't it possible that he will kill more people when he gets free? It is, but I would need to write another text with twice the size of this one to show you how we view life and death, but remember that we believe in reincarnation and the immortality of the spirit.)

- Nothing that is "taught" through force is actually learned, if he/she can't understand why he/she should do it, force isn't gonna teach him/her. Teach through talk, advises, examples, if he/she doesn't learn, well the spirit is immortal and sooner or later it will learn. (I'm not saying here to simply give up on people because "they will learn sooner or later" , this is lazyness and obviously goes against the hard working rule)

I just realized that spiritism is too complex to explain in a manga forum. If anyone wants to know more just pm me.

Atheist. No, I din't have some kind of tragic dying relative or terminal illness that made me curse God. I was Buddhist once, but only because my mother brought me up that way. When she converted to Christianity, I din't follow her. And since she was the only reason I identified myself as "Buddhist" to begin with, I just lost interest in religion as a whole. Simple as that.

My policy on religion? You keep your ideas on your side of the fence, and I'll do the same. Everybody wins.

So, for example, in an ideal kardecist community, the leader would be a woman,( I can't remember the name of the area of the brain that makes women better at diplomacy and social relations in general, but well, it exists) while the scientists and manual labourers would be man(we have bigger bodies for the manual labour and bigger inferior-parietal lobules for math)

I'm not particularly concerned with what kind of jobs either sex should do; the gender roles that bother me are "men should go to work" and "women should stay home and take care of the household". I don't want to have to cook, clean, and take care of kids all day; I refuse to be the submissive party in a relationship because I was born a woman. Why should men have authority over women?! What gives a man the right to tell me what and what not to do?! I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions.For ages men have seen women simply as tools for them to use and abuse as they please and to be disposed of at their convenience. Women were treated as breeding machines, with the additional functions of housekeeper and concubine. And if a man got tired of his current woman, he simply exchanged her for a different one. Women were shoved around from man to man like a piece of furniture. And if she wasn't obedient? Well, he'd just smack her around a bit until she was. And God forbid she get a job! I mean, then she could like, leave. That is how men have treated women, and some men continue to treat women like this even now. And what do they use to justify their behaviour? That's right, religion, which is precisely why I don't like it.

Quote

Second, while we believe that you should always put the well being of your society before yours, we know that humans, selfish as we are, aren't really capable of doing this. A woman that wants to be an engineer shouldn't be forced to be a nurse just because she would be more efficient that way.(furthermore someone who doesn't do what he/she likes tend to not be as efficient as he/she was supposed to)

There wouldn't be a problem if an engineer and a nurse would have the same social status and similar income, but this is not the case. To begin with, comparing an engineer and a nurse is like comparing apples and oranges; what if we substitute the engineer with a doctor. Why would a woman be more efficient as a nurse than as a doctor? There is no reason why a female doctor should be any less efficient than a male doctor, is there?

Quote

I have my free-will and even God doesn't mess with it, how can we humans do it? (There are obvious exceptions, for example, a mass murderer should obviously be imprisioned, since free-will will be much more messed up with his freedom. Killing the murderer instead of trying to chance his mind is lazyness and goes against the "hard working rule. Oh but isn't it possible that he will kill more people when he gets free? It is, but I would need to write another text with twice the size of this one to show you how we view life and death, but remember that we believe in reincarnation and the immortality of the spirit.)

Try thinking of the serial killer as a flesh-eating bacteria. What will would you rationally do to a flesh-eating bacteria? Given the means, you'll destroy it, right?Then, think of the serial killer as a rat transfering the plague to humans. What would people do? They would kill the rat.Now, think of a vicious predator (the species is irrelevant) going on a rampage killing lots of people. What would the police do if they were on site? They would shoot the animal.And think what would happen if a dog bit a human to death. The dog would undoubtedly be euthanised.So, it is okay to kill animals for killing people, but is not okay to kill a human for doing the same?

I've posted here before, and I've never really believed in God, but my recent exposure to http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/ has forced me to certain conclusions that I was ambivalent about before. In short, looking at the history and development of religion in general and Christianity in particular (for example, how nearly everything in the story of Jesus came first from a variety of earlier religions) makes it impossible for me to see religion as anything more than mankind's way of coping with the vast unknown. I understand the impulse to seek certainty and meaning in the universe, but though one cannot prove or disprove the existence of a general God (particular gods/dogmas are a different matter), when I look at the facts I see little room for a God of any kind.

PS. I am happy to engage in, and in fact would appreciate, discussion of these ideas.

I'm not particularly concerned with what kind of jobs either sex should do; the gender roles that bother me are "men should go to work" and "women should stay home and take care of the household". I don't want to have to cook, clean, and take care of kids all day; I refuse to be the submissive party in a relationship because I was born a woman. Why should men have authority over women?! What gives a man the right to tell me what and what not to do?! I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions.For ages men have seen women simply as tools for them to use and abuse as they please and to be disposed of at their convenience. Women were treated as breeding machines, with the additional functions of housekeeper and concubine. And if a man got tired of his current woman, he simply exchanged her for a different one. Women were shoved around from man to man like a piece of furniture. And if she wasn't obedient? Well, he'd just smack her around a bit until she was. And God forbid she get a job! I mean, then she could like, leave. That is how men have treated women, and some men continue to treat women like this even now. And what do they use to justify their behaviour? That's right, religion, which is precisely why I don't like it.

I agree with you, except not liking every religion from the start just because some "help" man to explain why women should be submissive. In fact, I don't know many religions who actually defend that women should be submissive, but people always try to distort every religion teachings to their own benefit, see the difference between christianism and catholicism. Catholicism is an aberration.

Quote

There wouldn't be a problem if an engineer and a nurse would have the same social status and similar income, but this is not the case. To begin with, comparing an engineer and a nurse is like comparing apples and oranges; what if we substitute the engineer with a doctor. Why would a woman be more efficient as a nurse than as a doctor? There is no reason why a female doctor should be any less efficient than a male doctor, is there?

That's why I used the ideal kardecist society. They don't have, but they should have. And you are wrong, in fact, at least here in Brazil, we lack nurses and have an excess of engineers, if we needed to sacrifice people right now the some engineers would die first.As to why I used the nurse: I know for sure that women are better nurses than men, while I don't have the knowledge to tell if men doctors are better than women doctors. As in everything, one sex must have the upperhand, from the statistics I could access, men are in general better doctors, but simple statistics have many factors that may interfere, so I only would be able to say for sure with a neurological analysis

Quote

Try thinking of the serial killer as a flesh-eating bacteria. What will would you rationally do to a flesh-eating bacteria? Given the means, you'll destroy it, right?Then, think of the serial killer as a rat transfering the plague to humans. What would people do? They would kill the rat.Now, think of a vicious predator (the species is irrelevant) going on a rampage killing lots of people. What would the police do if they were on site? They would shoot the animal.And think what would happen if a dog bit a human to death. The dog would undoubtedly be euthanised.So, it is okay to kill animals for killing people, but is not okay to kill a human for doing the same?

Do you really think other animals and bacteria would be able to repent for their crimes if they were given the option? No, their rational capacity goes only as far as survival needs. They aren't capable of understanding morals. Humans are.

I've posted here before, and I've never really believed in God, but my recent exposure to [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/[url] has forced me to certain conclusions that I was ambivalent about before. In short, looking at the history and development of religion in general and Christianity in particular (for example, how nearly everything in the story of Jesus came first from a variety of earlier religions) makes it impossible for me to see religion as anything more than mankind's way of coping with the vast unknown. I understand the impulse to seek certainty and meaning in the universe, but though one cannot prove or disprove the existence of a general God (particular gods/dogmas are a different matter), when I look at the facts I see little room for a God of any kind.

PS. I am happy to engage in, and in fact would appreciate, discussion of these ideas.

I'm willing to engage, first by stating that any argument against the catholic church and it's variations isn't effective, since the catholic church is ridiculous and not compatible to even what Christ said, so it can't even really be called a christian religion.I won't discuss with person who mistakes Catholicism for Christianism.That excludes 98%(or more) of the comments in this reddit thing.

Second, Spiritists defend science and it doesn't bother our religion in the least, in fact, scientific research and logical thinking is the basis of our religion.Kardec("founder") stated that if science could prove anything contrary to the spiritist codification, we should burn it. Kardec's books where written in the XIX century, until now, from everything he wrote, most things were proven right by science and some remain unable to be proven or refuted. As examples I can use the fact that things(I don't know how you name it in english) smaller than the atom existed, cellphones and internet.

The thing is, in the end you need to admit one of the two:- Kardec is the by FAR the biggest visionary in history- Kardecism is right

I have never met or heard of someone who has actually ended "The Spirit's Book" and voted on the first option.

I suggest that if you want to debate you send Questions and I will Answer, that is how spiritist debates go.

I'm willing to engage, first by stating that any argument against the catholic church and it's variations isn't effective, since the catholic church is ridiculous and not compatible to even what Christ said, so it can't even really be called a christian religion.I won't discuss with person who mistakes Catholicism for Christianism.That excludes 98%(or more) of the comments in this reddit thing.

The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in existence based on the teachings of Christ. Hundreds of smaller christian sects came into existence alongside the Catholic sect, few of them agreed on anything about the teachings of Christ. In fact, it's very likely that we don't currently have access to even 1/100 of the original teachings, both actual and invented. Eventually, Catholicism won out because it was legitimized and backed by the Roman Empire and the four Gospels that it supported were accepted as the only true ones (I ask that you forgive me for not remembering the name of the specific Emperor at the moment). From there, Catholicism was the only Christian faith with any sort of longevity of influence until the Great Schism beginning in 1054 during which Eastern Orthodoxy essentially became a separate Christian faith, but one still based on the four Gospels legitimized by the Catholic Church.

Nearly all major protestant faiths that exist are also based directly off of the Catholic church, in that they still only recognize four Gospels as being legitimate. While there are major theological disagreements between Catholicism and the Protestant faiths, and between individual Protestant faiths, the most massive differences are largely structural. The core beliefs of any Christian faith are the same, or at least similar, because they are all interpretations of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Catholic Gospels.

All of this points to one thing; Catholicism is a Christian religion, despite what you assert. In fact, given the evidence, it would be more accurate to say that most current Christian faiths are derivative of Catholicism, not that Catholicism is derivative of Christianity.

I agree with you, except not liking every religion from the start just because some "help" man to explain why women should be submissive. In fact, I don't know many religions who actually defend that women should be submissive, but people always try to distort every religion teachings to their own benefit, see the difference between christianism and catholicism. Catholicism is an aberration.

What you're saying here is that men feel women should be submissive and that some religions just help them to explain why; so, you're saying you think women should be submissive? At least in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam women are supposed to be submissive. Christians aren't any better than the Catholics; do you really think atrocities such as the sexual abuse of children is restricted to the Catholic Church? I don't think so; so far the Christians just managed to cover it up better.

Quote

That's why I used the ideal kardecist society. They don't have, but they should have. And you are wrong, in fact, at least here in Brazil, we lack nurses and have an excess of engineers, if we needed to sacrifice people right now the some engineers would die first.As to why I used the nurse: I know for sure that women are better nurses than men, while I don't have the knowledge to tell if men doctors are better than women doctors. As in everything, one sex must have the upperhand, from the statistics I could access, men are in general better doctors, but simple statistics have many factors that may interfere, so I only would be able to say for sure with a neurological analysis

Well, I'm not aware of the situation in Brazil; Europe's got its own problems to worry about for the moment.That's probably because there are many more male doctors than there are female doctors; for instance, if data shows that only 10% of all male doctors ever made a fatal mistake as opposed to 50% of the women, that would make it seem like men are much better doctors than women. However, if you then find out that there are 5000 male doctors included in the sample and only 100 female doctors, that would mean that men have made 500 fatal mistakes and women only 50. So, it really depends on how much information you're given. Skills also differ greatly depending on the person, and the kind of education that person was given.

Quote

Do you really think other animals and bacteria would be able to repent for their crimes if they were given the option? No, their rational capacity goes only as far as survival needs. They aren't capable of understanding morals. Humans are.

Some humans aren't.I also think elephants, apes and several whale species might very well be able to understand morals. These animals, like humans, have spindle cells, they live in organised social groups, they communicate with each other, and I think especially elephants and whales may be much more intelligent than humans give them credit for.And in the case of the dog; when a dog misbehaves it is almost always the owner's fault, but the dog will be the one to pay the price.A few years ago, someone had their dog euthanised because it bit their child; it later turned out that the dog had 17 staples in its ear, which was the child's doing. If a dog that didn't even do anything wrong isn't given a second chance, why should a human who's killed people and shows no sign of remorse be allowed to live?

I'm willing to engage, first by stating that any argument against the catholic church and it's variations isn't effective, since the catholic church is ridiculous and not compatible to even what Christ said, so it can't even really be called a christian religion.I won't discuss with person who mistakes Catholicism for Christianism.That excludes 98%(or more) of the comments in this reddit thing.

The Catholic Church is the oldest institution in existence based on the teachings of Christ. Hundreds of smaller christian sects came into existence alongside the Catholic sect, few of them agreed on anything about the teachings of Christ. In fact, it's very likely that we don't currently have access to even 1/100 of the original teachings, both actual and invented. Eventually, Catholicism won out because it was legitimized and backed by the Roman Empire and the four Gospels that it supported were accepted as the only true ones (I ask that you forgive me for not remembering the name of the specific Emperor at the moment). From there, Catholicism was the only Christian faith with any sort of longevity of influence until the Great Schism beginning in 1054 during which Eastern Orthodoxy essentially became a separate Christian faith, but one still based on the four Gospels legitimized by the Catholic Church.

Nearly all major protestant faiths that exist are also based directly off of the Catholic church, in that they still only recognize four Gospels as being legitimate. While there are major theological disagreements between Catholicism and the Protestant faiths, and between individual Protestant faiths, the most massive differences are largely structural. The core beliefs of any Christian faith are the same, or at least similar, because they are all interpretations of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Catholic Gospels.

All of this points to one thing; Catholicism is a Christian religion, despite what you assert. In fact, given the evidence, it would be more accurate to say that most current Christian faiths are derivative of Catholicism, not that Catholicism is derivative of Christianity.

I will only ever call a religion christian if it doesn't go against many things said in "Mathew, Mark, Like, and John", like the roman church does. I have never seen such an convenient "interpretation". Furthermore this is a pointless discussion, it's like arguing about when two people started dating if they never actually confessed to each other (I did that once ).But I get your point and will refrain from using this word to avoid needless conflicts.

Costantine I was the western roman emperor, he is the one who started mutating christianism into catholicism, he invented the Holy Thrinity, for example.Some other western empreror banished reincarnation from the bible too, but I can't remember his name. Well, the catholic church really liked to mess with the bible, they even invented hell and the devil, even when both go against the ideia of God's benignity and fairness.

God knows how much of the bible was lost in these years, and that is why spiritists will hardly use it for guidance.

Quote

What you're saying here is that men feel women should be submissive and that some religions just help them to explain why; so, you're saying you think women should be submissive? At least in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam women are supposed to be submissive. Christians aren't any better than the Catholics; do you really think atrocities such as the sexual abuse of children is restricted to the Catholic Church? I don't think so; so far the Christians just managed to cover it up better.

You interpreted my text the way you wanted to, I never said women should be submissive."except not liking every religion from the start just because some "help" man to explain why women should be submissive"I just said that they help to men explain why women should be submissive, not that I agreed with their whys or anything.

The sexual abuse of children isn't written in any holy book, as far as I know, so it's a human's failure and not the failure of the religion.

Quote

Well, I'm not aware of the situation in Brazil; Europe's got its own problems to worry about for the moment.That's probably because there are many more male doctors than there are female doctors; for instance, if data shows that only 10% of all male doctors ever made a fatal mistake as opposed to 50% of the women, that would make it seem like men are much better doctors than women. However, if you then find out that there are 5000 male doctors included in the sample and only 100 female doctors, that would mean that men have made 500 fatal mistakes and women only 50. So, it really depends on how much information you're given. Skills also differ greatly depending on the person, and the kind of education that person was given.

You didn't need to use 7 lines to repeat what I said.Just so you know, the data I have is in percentage, men commit less mistakes, but there are many others things to consider, like education, there is no guarantee the men and the women received the same education, and there is also the possibility that one studied more than the other, as I said, only a neurological analysis could settle it.

Quote

Some humans aren't.

But some are. And that is why simply killing is wrong.

Quote

I also think elephants, apes and several whale species might very well be able to understand morals. These animals, like humans, have spindle cells, they live in organised social groups, they communicate with each other, and I think especially elephants and whales may be much more intelligent than humans give them credit for.And in the case of the dog; when a dog misbehaves it is almost always the owner's fault, but the dog will be the one to pay the price.A few years ago, someone had their dog euthanised because it bit their child; it later turned out that the dog had 17 staples in its ear, which was the child's doing. If a dog that didn't even do anything wrong isn't given a second chance, why should a human who's killed people and shows no sign of remorse be allowed to live?

Ants also are capable of living in society.

Some apes(or all of them, I don't know every kind of ape out there), live in society. An society is essential to their survival. ALL they do in their society is only the basic for it's maintenance, there is no moral in it. An ape will only understand that he shouldn't touch the green ball when you punish him some way for touching it or if you praise him for not touching it. The same applies to the dog. They are not capable of going out of their survival instincts.

A dog will fight for it's owner life, as it would fight for it's pack leader survival. Because he loves his pack leader? No, Because the survival of the strongest genetic line in the pack is important to the survival of the species. He is not intelligent enough to understand that, though, he just follows his instinct to protect the leader, the meaning of his actions are probably not known to him.

An alpha male monkey(or female, I don't know if there are any species of monkeys in which the female is the leader, I'm stating that so you don't come with the "you choose the male monkey because you are sexist") will fight for it's territorry because territory is important for the species survival, even when you put him in a "blank" room, there is still a high probability that he will try to defend it as territory, even though it doesn't do him any good. He probably doesn't know it doesn't do him any good, he just has the instinct to protect territory.

I am technically Buddhist. I have attended the temple every Sunday ever since I was little. I pray, I'm a vegetarian, but my heart just isn't in it, sadly. I've been through many classes about the history of Buddha and was in a Buddhist Youth Group Organization before I realized that it was just my mind doing the praying. I guess society has kind of affected my beliefs in religion to the point where "science" (or what people think science is) has eclipsed any belief in a spiritual deity. The only religion that I feel closest to me right now is Christianity, weirdly. My aunt is a Christian and she is always sending me Bibles, taking me to church, and telling me to convert. If I did, my parents would probably disapprove of it, so I keep it to myself. I believe semi-consciously in God, and sometimes I talk to him. Though I probably won't be an extremely devoted follower like attending church every week if I do convert, I might consider the option later in life when I'm free.

I've been atheist ever since I was born.There's not one spiritual cell in my body.I am unable to believe as it goes againstthe way my brain works. Not that I want toeither. Sure, could be cool if ghosts, manticores and tarotreadings were real, but it is against my natureto start believing in them. It simply makes no sense for me.